Mrs Foster today made clear:“Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom. We will not accept any form of regulatory divergence which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom. The economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom will not be compromised in any way.”

How on earth could a Conservative Prime Minister have allowed herself to be drawn into a position where that “economic and constitutional integrity” could be questioned in the slightest degree?

What part of the words “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” does the Prime Minister fail to comprehend?

Too many Tories have been relying on the complacent assumption that DUP MPs will continue to support the government at Westminster (despite every provocation and betrayal) because they cannot possibly risk a Jeremy Corbyn government.

It’s time for the DUP (and any remaining genuine Tory patriots) to call that bluff.

UKIP’s latest leadership election will have eleven candidates after the party’s national executive announced yesterday that they had decided not to block an EDL-linked candidate from standing.

‘Moderates’ on the executive tried to block the leadership campaign of Anne Marie Waters, a former Labour Party member whose campaign team includes ex-BNP member Jack Buckby. Ms Waters is a longstanding ally of Paul Weston (head of Liberty GB) and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, alias ‘Tommy Robinson’ (founder of the English Defence League, EDL).

Liberal media outrage against Ms Waters (typified by a Nick Cohen column in The Observer) is matched by opposition to her candidature within UKIP, almost all of whose MEPs would quit if she became leader or deputy leader. Mike Hookem, UKIP’s deputy chief whip in the European Parliament whose immediate superior – chief whip Stuart Agnew – is Ms Waters only senior supporter, quit in protest yesterday saying that “turning a blind eye to extremist views” was “not something I am prepared to do”.

Among those condemning Ms Waters is rival leadership candidate Jane Collins, an MEP for Yorkshire & Humber who fought two high-profile parliamentary by-elections for UKIP: Barnsley Central in 2011 and Rotherham in 2012, but Ms Collins is a fringe candidate in a contest that (if you believe the bookies) is now realistically a five-horse race.

The field of ‘moderate’ candidates has been further confused by the late entry into the race of Henry Bolton, a military intelligence veteran who stood for Kent Police & Crime Commissioner last year. Bolton is the dark horse in the race, and seems to be picking up support from ‘moderates’ who think that neither Kurten nor Rees-Evans are serious leadership material.

Libertarians disturbed by the anti-Islamist obsessions of Waters and Peter Whittle (described by the Jewish Chronicle as “the Israel-loving friendly face of UKIP” and current favourite to win, after promising to appoint Waters his deputy) are tending to back David Coburn (UKIP’s only Scottish MEP) or Ben Walker (an ex-Tory and councillor for a Bristol suburb), but some will try to pick a ‘non-Islamophobic’ winner from among Kurten, Rees-Evans and Bolton, so as to block the ‘extremists’ Whittle and Waters.

Coburn and Whittle are gay, while Waters is a lesbian. Former leadership candidate Suzanne Evans was thus able to post on Twitter celebrating the fact that “33% of UKIP’s leadership candidates are gay. What other party has ever been able to say that?”

Surprise candidates joining the race but likely to finish as also-rans include Aidan Powlesland, parliamentary candidate for South Suffolk earlier this year, who is an enthusiast for space exploration; David Allen, 2017 parliamentary candidate for Rochester & Strood; and Marion Mason, a former Tory councillor who was UKIP candidate for Hertfordshire Police & Crime Commissioner.

The result of the leadership election will be announced at UKIP’s conference on September 29th in Torquay, after which senior figures such as Nigel Farage and Arron Banks will get on with the serious business of organising a split.

One organisation lavishly funded by Soros was the British “antifascist” group Hope Not Hate, which in one of the leaked documents is shown receiving $93,740 for just one of its projects – Hope Camp – in advance of the 2014 elections.

This was part of a series of Soros-funded projects intended to influence those elections. According to the leaked documents, Hope Camp’s “purpose is to provide a community organizers’ training program for local anti-hate organizations, especially those wanting to engage in the 2014 European elections. The training model will combine the experience, the organizing and campaigning skills developed and used by HOPE not hate in the UK and by United We Dream in the US.”

UK political parties are of course prohibited from receiving overseas donations from people not on the UK electoral register. It will be interesting to see whether the Electoral Commission takes a close look at foreign, non-party intervention in the electoral process.

Although Soros & Co. might have been well pleased with the BNP’s defeat in 2014, the truth is that this had little to do with “antifascist” campaigning. Nick Griffin had already effectively destroyed his own party’s chances years earlier.

Moreover, another of the leaked Soros documents – a review of the European campaign, written in November 2014 – showed that not everything went the billionaire’s way. The document makes clear that the Soros foundations “concentrated a large amount of resources and energy to try and bolster the groups and campaigns which could, in some ways, mitigate the feared populist surge in the EP elections.”

This involved “exposing the weaknesses of the extreme right”.

However, while some projects “far exceeded our expectations”, others “surprised us in a negative way. The grant to UNITED, for example, was a clear disappointment. While the proposal was well written and the cooperation with ENAR and HOPE not Hate, two OSF grantees which generally deliver great work, seemed promising, not much was achieved on the ground. …Arguing that the HOPE not Hate approach could not be applied in other countries due to particular sensitivities, the project ended up with five very different projects on the ground, with little coordination amongst them. …It was a typical case of a project which looked great on paper, but was an unexpected disappointment in practice.”

H&D looks forward to analysing these leaked documents further: but two points are already evident. Firstly, there was massive financial intervention by George Soros and his foundations in a covert effort to influence European elections. Secondly, despite lavish funding, many of these interventions failed and are continuing to fail, as European nationalist movements continue to advance!

Joe Chiffers was UKIP candidate for Liverpool Riverside at the last general election. A few months ago, having become disillusioned with UKIP’s avoidance of fundamental issues, he quit and joined Jack Sen’s British Renaissance, where he was appointed party chairman for a few months earlier this year.

Indeed Frederick Lawton, a candidate for the British Union of Fascists during the 1930s who was directly involved in attempting to secure funding from the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist governments for BUF projects, later became (as Sir Frederick Lawton) one of Britain’s most senior judges, sitting as a Lord Justice of Appeal until his retirement in 1986. It has often been more difficult for solicitors than for barristers to hold racial nationalist views, unless they are sole practitioners or in a partnership with fellow nationalists. Examples of nationalist solicitors include the Leicestershire firm run by Anthony Reed Herbert and Philip Gegan of the NF and (original) BDP; the late Tessa Sempik (partner of former NF vice-chairman Richard Verrall); and English Democrats leader Robin Tilbrook.

MSB Solicitors’ managing partner Paul Bibby told the Liverpool Echo that Mr Chiffers was facing disciplinary action, saying that MSB “pride ourselves on being a socially liberal firm and the views expressed are absolutely the antithesis of what we stand for at MSB”.

What does Mr Bibby’s “liberalism” amount to? Does it mean slavish adherence to a politically correct litmus test? Or does it mean liberal tolerance of diverse opinions?

Unsurprisingly the likes of Simon Fox (chief executive of the newspaper group pursuing Mr Chiffers) have no time for such fine British traditions. The values of Mr Fox and his ilk are entirely alien, and reflected every day in their newspapers.

We hope that MSB Solicitors will reject this disgraceful attempt to impose political censorship and ideological uniformity on the legal profession. Meanwhile Joe Chiffers has released a video response to his would-be persecutors.

Also worth watching is an earlier speech by Mr Chiffers delivered to a UKIP audience, on the origin and intent of the European Union (see below).

We shall inform H&D readers of further developments in this disturbing case.

After noting Jeremy Corbyn’s extraordinary betrayal of his own principles – the Labour leader has spent most of his life as a committed opponent of the European Union, yet half-heartedly campaigned for Remain rather than taking a principled stand at the head of Labour’s small pro-Leave faction – Glover writes:

The reason he failed to do so was not simply a kind of bumbling cowardice. Ensconced in his Islington redoubt, he is surrounded by metropolitan lefties such as his neo-Stalinist director of strategy, the former Guardian journalist and Winchester College-educated Seumas Milne, who neither know nor care about Labour’s working-class voters.Corbyn is unable to relate to their fears. In his handbook of international socialism, immigration is an unalloyed good which must be promoted at every opportunity. It doesn’t matter to him or to his advisers that millions of Labour voters have seen their wage rates undercut by EU workers, and pressure placed on their schools, hospitals and GP surgeries by uncontrollable EU migration.I’ve no doubt, too, that Corbyn can’t understand the deep patriotism — and the desire not to be bullied by bloodless Brussels-based Eurocrats — which so many of these decent people feel. His neighbouring Labour MP in Islington, whom he has promoted to be Shadow Defence Secretary notwithstanding her almost total ignorance of her brief, is Emily Thornberry.Having been sacked from the Shadow Cabinet by Ed Miliband after she had sneeringly tweeted a picture of a family home draped with flags of St George, her banishment did not last long. Corbyn obligingly rehabilitated her soon after his election as Leader.His almost bone-headed inability to grasp the effects of mass immigration on working-class communities was paraded by him in the most shaming way last Sunday on BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show.Having loftily blamed the pressure on housing and schools on the Tory Government’s spending cuts, he asserted with absurd myopia: ‘There is no “uncontrolled immigration”. There is freedom of movement that goes both ways: more than two million British people are living in Europe.’ No wonder Labour supporters voted as they did!

The British people – and in particular the White working class of England – have delivered a stunning rebuke to their political leaders in what amounts to the first revolutionary moment in British politics since 1945.

Prime Minister David Cameron has quit – his career in ruins – after the United Kingdom voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union. When Cameron’s Conservatives won last year’s general election, the turnout was 66%. This week’s referendum saw a 72% turnout (73% in England).

While the bastions of privilege that are Cameron’s natural home voted heavily in favour of Remain, there was a Leave landslide in White working class areas. Kensington & Chelsea voted 69-31 for Remain; Oldham voted 61-39 for Leave.

Further analysis of this result will soon appear on this site and in the new edition of Heritage and Destiny, which will be published in a week’s time.

For now we leave you with the old socialist hymn England Arise! Finally voters have recognised that the Labour Party no longer speaks for England. Whether UKIP can radicalise itself sufficiently to do so remains to be seen. A nationalist movement will surely rise from the ashes of the BNP.

England, arise! The long, long night is over, Faint in the East behold the dawn appear, Out of your evil dream of toil and sorrow – Arise, O England, for the day is here! From your fields and hills, Hark! The answer swells – Arise, O England, for the day is here!

People of England! All your valleys call you, High in the rising sun the lark sings clear, Will you dream on, let shameful slumber thrall you? Will you disown your native land so dear? Shall it die unheard – That sweet pleading word? Arise, O England, for the day is here!

Over your face a web of lies is woven, Laws that are falsehoods pin you to the ground, Labor is mocked, its just reward is stolen, On its bent back sits Idleness encrowned. How long, while you sleep, Your harvest shall it reap? Arise, O England, for the day is here!

Forth, then, ye heroes, patriots and lovers! Comrades of danger, poverty and scorn! Mighty in faith of Freedom, thy great Mother! Giants refreshed in Joy’s new rising morn! Come and swell the song, Silent now so long; England is risen, and the day is here!

Britain’s press barons are closing ranks behind an increasingly desperate Prime Minister David Cameron, as the City of London elite begins to fear that the referendum vote might be moving in favour of Brexit.

We suggest that the Mail‘s journalists should take their medicine, sit down and think about the realities of referendum politics.

Any referendum by its very nature reduces the complexities of politics to a simple Yes/No dichotomy.

Inevitably therefore both the Remain camp and the Leave camp will contain individuals who on other issues would strongly disagree with each other.

Individuals featured in the Mail‘s story, such as Eva Van Housen, Mark Collett, Richard Edmonds, Kevin Layzell and Tony Martin all have the political maturity to recognise this. Sadly the Mail‘s journalists haven’t yet worked out this basic political principle.

As for “hijacking”, readers should bear in mind that nationalists who support Brexit do so at their own trouble and expense, without the slightest prospect of financial gain. Unlike journalists who sell their integrity to billionaire press barons.

H&D readers will remember Baroness Scotland as the Attorney General in Gordon Brown’s government from 2007 to 2010, who disgraced her office by colluding with the German government in its efforts to extradite Australian academic Dr Fredrick Töben.

These efforts were ultimately blocked by a British court in October 2008, allowing Dr Töben to return to Australia, but only after British nationalists and other supporters of academic freedom had to raise an astonishing £100,000 as cash security for Dr Töben’s bail pending his appeal. See report on the case here, and the eventual victory here.

Dr Fredrick Töben and Lady Michèle Renouf as the Australian academic prepared to leave London in November 2008, following the invalidation of a European Arrest Warrant

The German government’s attempt to prosecute Dr Töben were only possible because Britain had signed up to the European Arrest Warrant system, which allowed government’s to apply for extradition from fellow European countries without having to go through the old procedures of a full extradition hearing into the facts of the case.

Most importantly the new system scrapped the principle of “dual criminality”, which ensured that one could only be extradited from the UK if accused of something that would have been a crime if committed here.

Dr Töben’s “crime” would certainly not have been illegal here: he was wanted in Germany under that country’s notoriously oppressive laws restricting what historians, scientists or indeed anyone else can say about certain historical topics.

Specifically Dr Töben had disputed the orthodox historical account of the supposed homicidal gas chambers which are alleged to have killed several million Jews during the Second World War, supposedly on the orders of Adolf Hitler. No one has been able to find any document from Adolf Hitler ordering such a mass murder, nor has anyone answered the famous challenge of Prof. Robert Faurisson (a French expert on documentary analysis) who asked: “show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber”.

Nevertheless Dr Töben would assuredly have faced several years in a German prison cell had he been extradited under a European Arrest Warrant – for something that is not a crime in our country!

Baroness Scotland (as Commonwealth Secretary General) meeting the Queen at a Guildhall banquet in March 2016

Earlier in her career the same Baroness Scotland – who as Attorney General was responsible for colluding with her German counterparts in the attempted judicial kidnapping of Dr Töben – had been the Home Office minister responsible for piloting the new EAW system through the House of Lords.

She specifically assured Parliament in 2003 that revisionist historians such as Dr. Töben would not be subject to extradition under European Arrest Warrants for publishing their views on the internet. Yet five years later she allowed her senior officials to proceed with exactly the type of extradition which she had promised Parliament could never take place.

Had there been any sense of honour in politics, Baroness Scotland would have resigned as Attorney General following the Töben case in 2008, yet she remained until Labour lost office in 2010 and has since been promoted (under a Tory government!) to the position of Commonwealth Secretary-General. God knows what our Commonwealth partners in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are supposed to make of this latest demeaning of high office.

The Baroness survived a further scandal in 2009

In 2009 she survived public outrage and remained Attorney General even after having been found to employ an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper. Baroness Scotland was fined £5,000 for this offence but kept her job: though to his credit her parliamentary private secretary (Labour MP Stephen Hesford) resigned in protest, saying she should have quit or been sacked.

We are not surprised to see that the Baroness’s disgraced associate “Sir” Anthony Bailey is one of the leading campaigners for British membership of the European Union, and was a big donor to David Miliband’s failed campaign for Labour leader.

How could anyone vote to leave the European Union now that we know that we will all be £4,300 a year better off by 2030 if we stay in? Except, of course, that we will all be better off anyway even if we leave, just by not quite as much! All of that is assuming that economic growth continues at a predictable rate until 2030. And in economics nothing is predictable. If the Treasury is trying to look ahead fourteen years to 2030, try instead to look back fourteen years to 2002 and ask yourself how many economists then predicted the crash of 2008 – answer, none.

It’s not just dodgy forecasts that we can pick up from the Treasury’s document. There are also all those little things which the Treasury chose to ignore or brush aside but which will have quite a significant, and positive, effect should we choose to leave. To mention a few of those positive things; freedom from regulation, freedom to trade with the rest of the world, freedom from having to pay millions of pounds in tribute to the EU every day, freedom from the colossal cost to our infrastructure (schools, housing, transport, NHS) of mass immigration.

With mass immigration I come to the issue which, I suspect, is the real concern of readers of Heritage and Destiny. It is beyond belief that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a government which is pledged to reduce mass immigration to the tens of thousands, has predicated much of his strategy for economic growth on continuing mass immigration adding a further 3.3 million EU migrants to our population by 2030! This implies 235,000 EU migrants per annum and does not include those from outside the EU, nor births to all the newcomers and to those “Non White British” already living here.

Unlikely allies for Brexit: George Galloway and Nigel Farage

So here are some facts – not forecasts because the implications are obvious – of my own. Excluding the other countries of the United Kingdom whose populations are more or less stable and which attract little immigration, the population of England at the census of 2011 was 53 million of whom 42 million (80%) declared themselves to be White British. (It may be of interest to note that the population of England according to the census of 1951 was then 42 million, almost all White British). The 20% who are not White British have 35% of the children born annually in England, adding around 240,000 to their number every year. Annual net immigration, excluding British citizens returning to the UK after a spell abroad, is now running at 363000. So the total annual increase in the Non White British population is in the order of 600,000, a figure which can only go up as children are born to the future new arrivals. Given these figures it is easy to see how the Office for National Statistics has calculated that White British people will be a minority among under 18s by 2037, just 21 years from now.

Our national identity is being ground out of existence and Englishmen such as George Osborne and David Cameron are throwing the entire government machine into hastening the process. They must be thwarted.

Frauke Petry, leader of Alternative for Germany, which achieved tremendous gains in German elections yesterday.

The anti-immigration party “Alternative for Germany” (Alternative für Deutschland – AfD) has made worldwide headlines this week after yesterday’s elections to three German state parliaments (Landtag) in which AfD finished in second or third place.

AfD was only formed in 2013 and until last summer was mainly focused on reform of the European Union and the single currency: effectively a milder version of our UKIP. In the European Parliament its members were in the same transnational group as David Cameron’s Conservatives and the Polish governing party Law & Justice. They have now been expelled from this group and will probably ally with the Austrian Freedom Party and Marine Le Pen’s French National Front.

AfD was transformed into a more radical anti-immigration force less than a year ago under a new leader – Frauke Petry – and is now seen as the main voice for Germans disgusted by the liberal immigration policy of their Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Mrs Merkel’s Conservative CDU and its traditional opposition the SPD (similar to our Labour Party) were the big losers in yesterday’s elections, and the anti-immigration AfD were the big winners, fighting all three states for the first time.

The most dramatic result was in the former East German state of Saxony-Anhalt, where AfD finished second with 24.2% and will now be the main opposition to an unprincipled coalition of conservatives, socialists and greens who will attempt to govern the region. The nationalist NPD (which is fighting a court case against an attempted ban by German authorities) polled 1.9% (down from 4.6% last time) and a new nationalist party called Die Rechte (The Right) polled 0.2%.

AfD finished third in the traditionally prosperous and conservative western German state of Baden-Württemberg, polling 15.1%. The NPD (for whom this was never a stronghold) slipped from 1.0% to 0.4% and another nationalist party, the Republikaner (who held seats in Baden-Württemberg from 1992 to 2001) similarly fell from 1.1% to 0.3%.

In another western German state – Rhineland Palatinate – the AfD again finished third with 12.6%, while the NPD and Republikaner polled 0.5% (down from 1.1%) and 0.2% (down from 0.8%).

The immigration crisis and the rise of AfD inspired large numbers of Germans to take part in these elections: turnout was 61.1% in Saxony Anhalt and 70.4% in Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland Palatinate.

We can now expect AfD (despite the levels of support achieved in these elections) to be intensively targeted by Germany’s heavily politicised security agencies, who will support efforts by establishment politicians to intimidate anti-immigration campaigners.